D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[pemerton]

On Plausibility:

What I would say looking at my own GMing and self-scouting I have done after the fact is that I find say running Stars Without Number to the instructions it provides (and referencing blorb principles) to the best of my ability that I am still making aesthetic decisions that fit within my sense of what is plausible because when you have to create or design things there will be creative decisions. I would say that I am much more focused on plausibility as a constraint than I would be in say something like Dune 2d20. I would assume Stars Without Number as described in its text would count as a Living World Sandbox.

I have also seen a fair number of posts from Living World where they discuss certain aesthetic subjects they avoid (interpersonal drama. introspection, et al). That seems to imply within the context of the what's plausible decision space is also a filter based on aesthetic priorities.

Yes, I do get a sense that the "living world" ethos involves deliberately eschewing any sort of pathos or emotional dimension to play.

In my BW play, as I described not too far upthread, plausibility is an obvious consideration. But it's not the only one. I mean, what is the likelihood that getting lost in the catacombs would leave you beneath a grate where you just happen to see the now-woken Halika, who looks down and gloats at you, confident she can get to the tower first? It's possible, but it's certainly not the most likely thing.

But it's what I went for, as it seemed to me to be a good fit with the other principles that governed my decision.

 

[Faolyn]

This is why, in talking about Burning Wheel, I've been focusing on the most important rules of the game: the statements of role and responsibilities for players (build PCs, which include priorities determined by the player; and declare actions for those PCs when they confront the problems that the GM presents) and for the GM (frame scenes that speak to the players' priorities for their PCs; and make sure the dice are rolled when a player's declared action in response to such a scene addresses something at stake given that PC's player-determined priorities); and the principles that govern action declaration and resolution (intent and task, let it ride, no test-mongering, etc).

To me it is obvious that these are different principles from those set out in (say) the D&D Basic rules, or any version of AD&D, or CoC, or Gumshoe, or even a game much closer in spirit to BW, like Prince Valiant.

That's one reason why I've been a bit surprised that the posts asking questions about BW haven't asked about what effect following these principles has on the play of a RPG, but rather seem to have focused on rather subordinate matters like how gear lists interact with action resolution.

Because, IME, "what effect following these principles has" tends to not actually matter all that much in the long run in comparison to the game's tone and what the game allows the players to do.

 

[zakael19]

Where does it say that. I read it but I think I missed where it explained the term's meaning or source

And two be clear, I liked it. I would say it is just one way of talking about what we do (I wouldn't hold it up as the way, as there are points I think I would quibble with, simply as a matter of taste), but I think it is a much better way of describing what we do than "discovering the GMs notes" or the "Gm decides". I see a lot of too crossover with what I have said (paper rock scissors for example is very close to 'pinning it down'). And I like that they at least doesn't fully accept the gamist label (I don't particularly care for GNS categories personallY). I suspect they is being way more systematic than I would be about it though

This is why I cited her posts/play style like 300+ or more pages ago trying to understand if what you and Robert do is aligned with that sort of highly principled and deliberate methodology of prep and running. Her posts are among some of the most referenced in the newer ranks of OSR players because they lay out in nice digestible terms guidelines for play.

 

[Bedrockgames]

very cool! Thanks for sharing, yeah I can see how that all comes together to give this feeling of a “living world” around them. Love having the players roll on the tables/declaim a degree of decision making there - I do that a lot with my Stonetop game as well.

The tables are not something the players make decisions about, I have them roll sometimes because it helps them understand something is happening in the setting and I wasn't making a decision myself (and that this roll mattered). There are tables where their choices matter though. I have sect tables, which I don't always use because these kinds of sect management tools can get wonky when the group decides to do things in the setting that just doesn't fit. But when I do use them, whether they decide to remain present at HQ affects the column they roll on, whether they have assigned a senior disciple to remain affects the column, etc.

Your emphasis on factions / allies / resources reminds me a lot of the structure of the Blades faction game as well. Obviously the scope and procedures are different, but I think the core intent and outcomes are likely fairly similar in how they take that starting condition and constantly move it forward. I’d venture your emphasis is a little more on like “world/setting integrity” or something whereas Blades recommends more directly incorporating player actions; but maybe not really - since the starting clocks& faction goals are more “here’s where the players can get involved but the city is grinding away at its own priorities.”

I guess the way I would describe what I do is something like this: imagine all those all classic shaw brothers martial arts/wuxia films, with their gorgeous sets and colorful characters. I want to set up a world that feels like that, then have that world unfold through the characters and factions, with the players choices really having an impact on where things go. This is why I use a chemical reaction as an analogy

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Because, IME, "what effect following these principles has" tends to not actually matter all that much in the long run in comparison to the game's tone and what the game allows the players to do.

But we're only going to be able to really find out what the players can do and how they go about doing it by looking at the principles. They're not divorced from the rest of the rules; they inform them.

 

[Campbell]

If we are going to break up agency in terms of character agency and content authority / meta-agency I think we should also talk about agency as a player of a game as at least a separate concern. Especially in the realm of Sandbox play where Into the Odd and Worlds Without Number put a much stronger emphasis on scenario design from a gameplay perspective than Adventurer Conqueror King and @robertsconley 's enumerated approach while still very much being Living World Sandboxes.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And I'm sure you're going to go around and tell everyone else that too, right?

I only ask this of you because I have seen you personally get stroppy about others swinging around (allegedly) universal claims out of this.

I dislike rules being applied to others, taking them to task for it, and then expecting lenience for the exact same thing when they do it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But did the lion bring a flask? Let's ask the real questions.

You cannot get ye flask!

 

[pemerton]

Because, IME, "what effect following these principles has" tends to not actually matter all that much in the long run in comparison to the game's tone and what the game allows the players to do.

As someone who has suffered under terrible GMing - from a variety of people, none malicious, and some very experienced and capable RPGers - I can't agree.

What you say is true, perhaps, if my aspirations for my RPGing are to present my PC in a thespian fashion and then find out from the GM what happens next. But that has never been my goal for RPGing, except in the very occasional one-shot.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

On the one hand, we have some extremely large, often hungry carnivores, both of which are large enough to eat you in one, maybe two bites, and one of which is actively malicious in nature.

On the other hand, we have normal people doing things that make sense to their character.

I think I see a bit of a difference between those two things.

And all the other examples? Like the legendary Warlord creature which can be any humanoid? The adventure NPC who can cause fear? Etc., etc.?

There's a reason I gave a lengthy list of examples, ranging from strictly absolutely mundane (lions, dinosaurs), to the mildly supernatural (dragons, shapeshifters), to the literally "an NPC built like a PC".

All of which starts to sound rather like ad hoc explaining away of how the originally hard stance--that it's agency-destroying to have a rule which says that if your character fails a roll, they must feel fear and behave as such--is actually as holey as swiss cheese.